Politics – general election 2015 – UKIP Backs the Tories
Politics – UKIP Backs the Tories on Deficit Plans Vote UKIP and get the Tories seems to be the message. Recent polls suggest that no one (of a sane mind) thinks that UKIP is anything more than a 12 month wonder. Just as the polls suggest that most people see UKIP as a temporary refuge for their votes (very few people see them as existing in 10 years time according to BBc polling) UKIP says that the Tories’ plans on deficit reduction after the next general election 2015 are something that they will back. The message is clear. Vote UKIP and if there is not an over all Tory majority they will support Cameron – assuming that he would survive the kicking that he would get if the Tories do not get if he did not get a majority. (That is a kicking from his “honorable friends”). The men in grey suits resemble Brutus. The arithmetic of a hung House of Commons is fascinating, at least to me, that the Tories could be supported by UKIP that has gained a lot of support from the failing (thank god) BNP is understandable. They are the same really, but where Nick Clegg would be selling his soul, this time, is more interesting. If he survives a vote meltdown will he support the toxic Tory Party or the lamentable Labour Party? My feeling is that he will do anything – remember his dumping of his pledge about student fees – to secure a tenuous grip on power. The only vaguely interesting question is which way he will jump. His party would want to go to the left but his preference may well be to hitch his wagon to any party that would allow him to have a nice job title “Deputy Prime Minister” or “The one that is ignored by the Prime Minister”. I started writing this concerned about the fecklessness of UKIP and ended up talking the fecklessness of Nick Clegg. Why are they the same?
Politics – General Election 2015 – Tory Bribe Extended
Tory “Granny Bonds” on Sale for Longer. Tory Chancellor George Osborne has extended the deadline for the pensioner band for another 3 months. That is, until after the election. The bonds, provided by National Savings and Investments, are backed by the government. They give up to 4% interest over 3 years which is far more than is currently available to savers. The BBC’s Joe Lynam said; “We knew these pensioner bonds would be popular but few expected them to be this popular. Their arrival three weeks ago has flushed out billions of pounds of cash owned by older people. They’ve found a safe new place to park their money, with incredibly generous rates of interest. The original ceiling of £10bn has been scrapped simply because the (Tory) chancellor and his deputy (Liberal Democrat) Danny Alexander didn’t want to risk the ire of such a key voting demographic who might have missed out on such a lucrative opportunity. The fact that the newly created window for investing in pensioner bonds closes almost as the general election polls do is a happy coincidence”. But what is the cost of this Tory policy? The government borrows money at 1.2 % it lends it out at 4%. That is not good economics. There has been another, unexpected, consequence. According to Which? “Our new study indicates that 63 savings accounts, Isas or bonds had their interest rate lowered in the seven days following the launch of the market-leading pensioner bonds by National Savings & Investments on 15 January”. In other words as the Tory policy is going to underwrite more than £10bn in savings there is no longer the need for financial institutions to battle for the savings market. They have slashed their rates for the rest of us. Critics will say that ordinary working-age taxpayers will be subsidising an often wealthy group of pensioners whose homes have multiplied in value and whose company pensions are far more generous than will be the case when younger generations Generation retire. The Institute for Economic Affairs, criticised the extension of the scheme, arguing that it was distorting the market. “This announcement well and truly proves that we are not all in it together,” said Director General of the Institute for Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood. “Borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is effectively a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population.” Since when has that bothered a Tory Chancellor? Mr Littlewood went on to say “Pensioner bonds have never been anything other than a gimmick that will benefit pensioners at the expense of the taxpayer, and it beggars belief that the government is prolonging such a foolish policy.” The Tory Chancellor has said that the cost of extending the scheme would be in the region of “several hundred million of pounds”. Labour’s shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said pensioners had suffered under the coalition thanks to the rise in VAT and changes to age-related personal allowances. “Don’t be surprised if George Osborne, as we get closer to an election, tries to give away all sorts of things when, actually, he is trying to erase the memory of how much he has taken away from pensioners. And he has not said where he is going to get the money for this. What other public services are going to suffer as a result?”
Politics – General Election 2015 – Labour and Big Business
Labour Attacked by the Boss of Boots The Chemist The Labour Party was attacked at the weekend by Stefano Pessina who is the Executive Chairman of Walgreens Boots Alliance which owns Boots The Chemist. He said that a Labour government would be bad for business and bad for the country. He said “If they (Labour) acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe.”As he lives in Monaco, naturally, Labour has attacked him for being a tax exile. Presumably, they meant an Italian tax exile. What seems to be happening is that whereas previous Labour leaders went out of their way to be nice to big business Milliband is not as concerned about the issue. As everyone thinks that big businesses spend most of their time avoiding, if not evading, tax perhaps Milliband relishes taking them on. More people are sceptical of the way businesses are run and try to evade their responsibilities. That could play well for the Labour Leader. In the meantime the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have criticised the Labour leader and that was “trying to shut down” criticism of his policies with “personal attacks” on critics. No surprise there, when they start supporting Labour that would be news. The former boss at Marks and Sparks, Lord Rose weighed in against labour’s business policies. As he is a Tory peer that is also not much of a surprise. Peter Mendelson has warned the Labour leadership to be careful about the language it uses about its approach to big businesses. Along with various What big business seems to dislike, amongst other things, is the pledge to raise the top rate of tax from 45p to 50p and the proposed freeze of electricity and gas bills. Anything that gets in the way of profits is a “Bad Thing”, obviously. Just like the minimum wage which was attacked by big business. All right thinking people know that what is required is less legislation and control over businesses.
POLITICS – General Election 2015 When is a Tory Cut not a Cut?
Tory Education Promise Not What it Seems Who would have thought that politicians would say one thing and mean another? On Sunday Nicky Morgan, who ‘replaced’ Michael Gove as Education Secretary said that spending on education would be ring fenced should the Tory party win the general election 2015. Actually, she said that education spending in schools would be ring fenced. Not education spending as a whole, just the spending on schools. That leaves the way open for cuts to pre-school and higher education spending. Yesterday Cameron ‘clarified’ what the Tory pledge means. It seems that spending (only on schools, remember) would be protected only to the extent of “flat cash” per pupil spending. In other words as inflation goes up the spending would not. That is a cut. Mr Cameron said this would mean “difficult decisions”. Now, there is an euphemism if there ever was one, he means that education will be clobbered, but only after we have been so stupid as to re-elect him. He went on to say that the government had demonstrated that with greater efficiency “more could be achieved with less”. That Euphemism means that Cameron cuts the budget and those of goodwill takes up the slack, the big society and all that. You know the sort of thing, we threaten to close the local library, you volunteer to work in it for free. Labour’s shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, said that Tory claims to protect funding were “unravelling” and represented a “real-terms cut”. Mr Hunt went on to say; “The truth is that you can’t protect schools when you have plans to take spending as a share of GDP back to levels not seen since the 1930s.” I have not done the sums, and have no reason to believe Hunt’s at face value but I see where he is coming from. The Tory party has a philosophy built on the belief that the ‘state’ should be as small as possible. That is why they voted against the NHS when the Labour party brought it in. They are only being true to their core beliefs. The Tory party may say “we will protect the Welfare State” what they really mean is “screw you, if you do not have enough money to buy health insurance or pay school fees from their friends.” The Liberal Democrat’s schools minister was typically scathing and harsh. He said that Cameron’s financial commitment was “unbelievably weak”. Believe me, for a Lib Dem THAT is being very harsh. In a hard hitting, incisive, analysis he said that the Tory commitments would mean a real term cut for schools and deep cuts in spending on pre-school and post 16 education. Talking about school standards Cameron said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure”, they would raise achievement in 3,500 schools rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted. All this with a real term cut over the next 5 years. A good trick if you could do it, but then they can’t and they don’t care. Not only because the Tory party does not believe in the State helping those of us who can not pay school fees, but because it is impossible to raise standards and to cut resources at the same time. Cameron went on, he said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure” schools that are rated as requiring improvement would have new leaderships imposed on them. They would have to be taken over by academy sponsors. Big and good academies would take over small and failing academies. Failing schools would sack their headmasters, he did not mention public flogging but surely that can not be long in coming. For her part Nicky Morgan did not say that the Tory party would automatically sack the heads “Where a school doesn’t have the capacity to improve itself, and many do, or where they don’t have a plan that is going to lead to that school being rated good or outstanding, then one of the answers might be to get new leadership in.” Sounds like sacking the heads of failing schools to me. Cameron said “No-one wants their child to go to a failing school and no-one wants to them to go to a coasting school either, Just enough is not good enough. That means no more sink schools and no more ‘bog standard” he went on to say “Our aim is this: the best start in life for every child, wherever they’re from – no excuses.” Good for Cameron, the best for all children, especially if they can afford to pay fees.
Politics – The Tory Party is to Fix Education
The Tory Party is going to Fix Education, Again. Nicky Morgan, the Tory Education Secretary, has said that they are going to wage ‘war on illiteracy and innumeracy’. So that is good news. Pupils aged 11 should know correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. They should also know their twelve times table. Who could argue with that? No one, certainly not me. Although it does raise a couple of interesting questions. The first and most obvious is; So, what have they been doing for the last 5 years? Is it only important for children to read, write and do sums just before an election? The second question is; As the Tory Chancellor, George Osborne avoided answering a 7 year old who asked him what seven times eight is. Just what was he doing at school? OK, so the answer is working hard, the son of a 17th Baronet, poor old Gideon (Gideon Oliver being his given names although he now prefers George) had to slum it at schools for the underprivileged namely; Norland Place (£4,580 per term) , Colet Court ( £5,807 per term) and then St Paul’s School (£7,264 a term for a day boy, £10,880 for a boarder). Even with his education poor old George failed to get a place on The Times trainee scheme. So, luckily for us all, he did manage to squeeze into a place in the Tory Party in the Research Department. Back to the point (I know I digress all too often) Nicky Morgan, the Tory Education Secretary – whatever Michael Gove still believes – says that “We (The Tory Party) will expect every pupil by the age of 11 to know their times tables off by heart, to perform long division and complex multiplication and to be able to read a novel.” She also said that funding for education would be largely ring fenced. It would seem that funding for higher education is not included in that promise. In The Sunday Times she went on to say “They (the children) should be able to write a short story with accurate punctuation, spelling and grammar. “Some will say this is an old-fashioned view, but I say that giving every child the chance to master the basics and succeed in life is a fundamental duty of any government.” So, what have they been doing for the last 5 years? The latest Pisa league table, which ranks the test results of 15-year-olds from 65 countries, puts the UK at 26th for maths and 23rd for reading. Apparently, it is the teachers’ fault. This from a Tory government that is happy to have non qualified teachers teaching our children. Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) described the new tests as a “gimmick” during the election season. “Apparently head teachers will be sacked should any – yes, any – child fail the new test. We are all for aiming high but, remember, this is a short test taken by a young child,” he said. “Mistakes happen, children feel under the weather or have a bad evening beforehand. This does not mean that teachers are not working as hard as possible.” Mistakes like having a Chancellor who can not multiply 8 by 7.
Politics – UKIP From Soap Opera to Farce
UKIP Descends into Farce A week is a long time in politics,that is what Harold Wilson said, it is even longer for UKIP! Where to start? The communities spokesman for Ukip has defected to the conservative Party. Amjad Bashir, who represents Yorkshire and the Humber, met with David Cameron on Friday and has defected to The Conservatives. The Boy Cameron is delighted. Farage less so. UKIP responded by suspending Bashir as soon as the rumours started. They accuse home of financial and employment irregularities. That is a well worn track for UKIP. They did the same to Neil Hamilton. Needless to say, both men deny any wrongdoing. A spokeman for UKIP said that a file has been forwarded to the police. “The UK Independence Party has a zero-tolerance policy and takes the matters at hand extremely seriously. “The allegations against Mr Bashir are of a grave nature and we will be forwarding our evidence obtained so far to the police. Ukip will not tolerate anyone abusing their positions in the party, as we have a firm commitment to differing ourselves from the existing political classes. As a result, Mr Bashir’s involvement with the party was suspended today with immediate effect pending further investigations.” When speaking to a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference Boris Johnson said would-be defectors (Tory to UKIP) were the kind of people who might inflict “barely credible” injuries on themselves by “vacuum cleaner abuse”. I imagine Farage is harbouring similar thoughts about Bashir. What else s going on in that bizarre world that is UKIP? Lynton Yates was the PPC for UKIP in Charnwood. Yates defected from the Conservative party to UKIP after being a Conservative councilor for 12 years before defecting. I do not know how close he feels to his vacuum cleaner. Yates’ offense? he released a leaflet that saying that those on benefits “could really catch a bus” he added that that banning them from driving and owning a car would “likely remove six million cars from the road”. He also said that cyclists should “go back to the pavements”. (Great news for people in wheelchairs, visually impaired pedestrians, and parents with children and toddlers). Suspending him just because he said some strange and unhinged things seems a bit odd for UKIP, after all, most of them say strange and bizarre things none more so than UKIP party secretary Matthew Richardson. At the week end he was reported as saying that Ukip should represent ‘bigots’ and labelling the NHS a ‘waste of money’. Now, Richardson has not been suspended he has been defended by Farage. Strange party. Surely There is not More? But there is! Farage told the BBC’s Sunday Politics that, if Labour won the election on a non-referendum manifesto and Ukip failed to get any MPs into parliament, he would resign within 12 hours. “I would have failed,” he said. “I would have spent years trying to achieve this goal. I got into politics not because I wanted a career in politics, far from it, I did it because I genuinely don’t think that this European entanglement is right for our country.” Now, this is not the first time that Farage has threatened, or promised depending on your point of view, to resign as UKIP’s leader. However, he may be serious this time, although it hard to tell. In the wake of him saying that the possible replacements are beginning to show their heads above the parapets. One being touted is UKIP’s immigration spokesman, Steven Woolfe, has confirmed that he would be interested in leading the party. Well thought of Woolfe is articulate and his pronouncements on immigration are much less radical than Farage let alone that far, far right wing elements that Richardson said that they should represent. What on earth is he doing in UKIP you may well ask. Remember that he disagreed with Farage’s defense of the word “chinky” by Kerry Smith saying “We have no room for racists and homophobes in our party. “All working class people don’t say those sorts of words, that’s absolutely clear,” he said. “One thing to say with Nigel is he tries to see the good in people all the time. On this particular issue, I think we will have a difference of opinion of how we deal with it, Nigel even accepted that he [Smith] couldn’t stand as a candidate.” Who else wants the mantel? Paul Nuttall (great name) is UKIP deputy leader and he seems up for it. Nuttall, as we all know was NOT Bungle from Rainbow a childrens’ TV programme from the 70s………………..
Politics – The Leaders’ Debates (2)
An unlikely trio try to gang up on Cameron about the Leaders’ Debates As I posted a few days ago David Cameron has found a wheeze which he hopes will scupper the Leaders’ Debates. He does not want them, as no sitting PM would, as it gives the opposition party leaders to share a platform with him and to look prime ministerial (whatever that means). Some of us doubt if Milliband, Clegg or Farage could ever look like a prime minister in waiting. The other reason Cameron wants to avoid the Leaders’ Debates is that he knows that he will get a kicking from Farage tempting even more Tory voters to defect to UKIP. The reason Cameron has cited for his reluctance is that it would be unfair for some minor parties to be represented, he mentioned UKIP and the Liberal Democrats and not the Green Party. The Milliband, Clegg Farage axis has written to Cameron saying that they want to go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates even without him. They wrote identical letters that said; “I believe it would be a major setback to our democratic processes if these debates were not repeated in 2015 because of one politician’s unwillingness to participate.” They went on to say: “It would be unacceptable if the political self-interest of one party leader were to deny the public the opportunity to see their leaders debate in public. “Therefore, if you are unwilling to reconsider, the three party leaders who have committed to participate will ask the broadcasters to press ahead with the debates and provide an empty podium should you have a last-minute change of heart. “These debates are not the property of the politicians and I do not believe the public will accept lightly the prospect of any politician seeking to block them.” So what now? My feeling is that Cameron will appear, with or without the Greens. He is already being attacked as being scared of the Leaders’ Debates. He can not afford to be seen as running away from Farage. More interesting is what the broadcasters would do if he sticks his heals in and refuses to appear. Would they really go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates (lite)? They would be very reluctant but it would be fun to see the empty podium. How much damage would that do to Cameron’s image and would the broadcasters hand such a coup to the terrible trio? Does anyone remember when Roy Hattersley refused to appear on Have I got News For You and was replaced by a tub of lard? What could they substitute for The Boy David?
Politics – Cameron Declares War on the Unions
Cameron Wants to “Curb” Union Ability to Strike Cameron, playing to his core constituency (that is the one that lives in the 1950s), has pledged that, should he be PM after May this year, he will curb the power of unions to paralyse important public services. Under his plan any strike proposal for health, transport, fir or educational services would need the backing of 40% of union members. At the moment all the union needs to call a strike is a simple majority of those that vote. Cameron has also said that there would need to be a minimum of a 50% turn out in a strike ballot. Cameron would also end a ban on using agency staff to cover for striking workers. He would also impose a three-month time limit after a ballot for action to take place and curbs on picketing. For some inexplicable reason union leaders think that this is an affront on democracy. If 50% of the workers take part in a ballot then 80% of them would have to vote “yes”. What could be fairer? If the purpose was to truly reflect the members’ feelings then why would the government veto any attempt to introduce secure online voting? This is one measure that would increase participation in ballots. The reason is that this is not about fairness. It is about Cameron playing to his constituency and about curbing union power. It is about being able to skew negotiations between the government and the unions. It is about reducing the unions’ ability to negotiate on a level playing field. Something that Cameron sees as being necessary if he is going to push through the eye watering cuts to public services that he wants in the next 5 years. I think that Cameron is onto something here. It is only right that there should be a minimum level of support for anyone who can influence the core public services. After all, this is being proposed by a popularly elected government, except it isn’t. Cameron was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote. In fact, only 15 Tory MPs out of 303 secured the level of support that Cameron is demanding of the unions. Cameron had no shame in forming a government in 2010 with less than 40% support from the electorate. Let’s face it The Boy David has no shame.
Politics – The Leaders’ Debates, Cameron says “No”
Cameron stands up for Democracy and The Greens, Really? David Cameron has said that he will not take part in the Leaders’ Debates unless The Greens are included. Making a stand for democracy. After all, The Greens out polled the Liberal Democrats at the last European elections. As he said; he could not see how “some minor parties like the Liberal Democrats and UKIP” could take part in the leaders’ debates, but not the Greens. A fair point, even if referring to his partners in crime as a minor party is pretty disrespectful. But is Cameron really sticking up for democracy? Do not believe it. He does not want to be on the same platform as the other leaders. To do so would enable them to demonstrate how statesmanlike they are. Cameron does not want to give them that potential hand up. He is also afraid that Farage will look to score points off him and will score some hits. Cameron knows that his party is the one that is most at risk from UKIP. His fear is that the debate could become a launch pad for UKIP at his expense. Expect to see more “he’s running scared tweets from Farage”. For once he is right. That a Prime Minister does not to take part in Leaders’ Debates is nothing new. They have always been resisted and Brown’s fate in the last lot will weigh heavily in the memory. There is, however, another part to this story. If they do happen (and they will) Cameron wants to share the pain with Clegg and Milliband. He knows that the Conservatory Party is safe from The Greens, but Labour and The Liberal Democrats are not. Cameron’s thinking is that no one who is thinking of voting Tory would ever swap from them to The Greens. The slogan vote blue and get green last time was a transparent attempt at a nod towards conservationists but the reality has been what we all knew that it would be. However Cameron would love to see voters moving from The Liberal Democrats and Labour to The Greens. There is no place for altruism in politics for Cameron (or any of the others to be fair). The debates will happen, but Cameron will be seen to be dragged screaming and crying into the studio.
Politics – The boy Cameron Hits Back
Cameron Says that Millibrand is a bit Wrong About the NHS Time and time again Miliband refused to tell Andrew Marr if he used the word “weaponise” to discuss cynically politicising the NHS. The PM isn’t going to let him forget it:“I heard that Ed Miliband had used this remark about ‘weaponising’ the NHS and that is why I put that to him in the House of Commons because frankly I think it was an appalling thing to say. The NHS is not a weapon… Having watched that exchange on Andrew Marr where he was wriggling like an eel, it is absolutely clear to me that he did say those words and that is why he wouldn’t deny it. And I think in one moment we learned more about Labour’s attitude to the NHS than we’ve learned perhaps for five years. They just see it as a political weapon and frankly I think that is disgraceful.” Oh come on Dave Cameron, the NHS? you have no reason to attack anyone about it. If Millibrand did not “weaponise” it he would be failing in his duty as the leader of the opposition. The truth is that you need to man up and say just why the NHS is in the mess that it is. Cameron you talk about how much you love the NHS, how much you use it. The truth is that it is failing. The truth is that it is failing under your watch. Dave Cameron, forget about the politics, actually DO something!
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
